Ahh secularism...

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:24 pm

Skip, I'm not taking sides in this argument because I think it's a futile one. If we were here designing a new government things might be different. I would just note though, that you're playing fast and loose with all sorts of concepts. You don't seem much to understand what science is, and you're showing ever more in each post you don't understand what secularism is, nor humanism. You seem to be writing each post as a defense of atheism and you've now steered the subject direct on top. It makes you look pretty simple minded and deceitful. You're making claims that seem to add up to "we atheists are the clever and correct ones, and all you others are unscientific and immoral."

If that's what you believe, you ought to just say it instead of trying to deceive people who are quite frankly, much brighter than you are.

FYI, Locke, Hobbes, especially Kant in his Categorical Imperative all proposed that morality has its basis in reason, and that a rational person will be a moral person. The trouble with this is that our everyday observation is that this is not true. Ethics and morality obviously have their roots far deeper than reason, and being rational does not ever make one moral. Kant had no way to explain a Professor Moriarty. The facts are that being rational, does not in any way make one moral, while there is a direct cause effect relationship observed that religious people are in general more moral than the irreligious, and that the precise qualities of the religion matter as well. Animists in Iran Jiya are amongst the most deceitful and treacherous in all the world, because their religion teaches them that betrayal is a virtue. Hence they hunt each other's heads.

You seem completely oblivious to all this, and toward everything that Christianity has delivered to Western Civilization. In fact., you not only take it all for granted, you want to pretend it comes from science and atheism.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:11 am

Diogenes wrote:You know them now because they exist NOW. How will they secure their moral constraints on the next generation?

The same way they learned it. There's a difference between telling children about Santa Claus, the Bogeyman, and the Tooth Fairy, and practicing a religion.

Diogenes wrote:You error in thinking is that you are applying my arguments to yourself, and not to a blank slate. (A young child.) You have let yourself become convinced of your current infallibility, so naturally my arguments are neither compelling nor instinctive to you.

You really like to project your own ideas on others.

Diogenes wrote:
Teahive wrote: Try reciprocity without all the useless fluff.
The problem with Atheists/Humanists is that they think social structures are "useless fluff." The notion that they don't understand the purpose of such social structures simply never occurs to them.

Nice strawman. Social structures work perfectly well without a common belief in a "mighty father".

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:29 am

.
.
.

Government’s Greatest Trick - Making you a slave to your fears.

.
.
.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:35 am

GIThruster wrote:Skip, I'm not taking sides in this argument because I think it's a futile one. If we were here designing a new government things might be different. I would just note though, that you're playing fast and loose with all sorts of concepts. You don't seem much to understand what science is, and you're showing ever more in each post you don't understand what secularism is, nor humanism. You seem to be writing each post as a defense of atheism and you've now steered the subject direct on top. It makes you look pretty simple minded and deceitful. You're making claims that seem to add up to "we atheists are the clever and correct ones, and all you others are unscientific and immoral."

If that's what you believe, you ought to just say it instead of trying to deceive people who are quite frankly, much brighter than you are.

FYI, Locke, Hobbes, especially Kant in his Categorical Imperative all proposed that morality has its basis in reason, and that a rational person will be a moral person. The trouble with this is that our everyday observation is that this is not true. Ethics and morality obviously have their roots far deeper than reason, and being rational does not ever make one moral. Kant had no way to explain a Professor Moriarty. The facts are that being rational, does not in any way make one moral, while there is a direct cause effect relationship observed that religious people are in general more moral than the irreligious, and that the precise qualities of the religion matter as well. Animists in Iran Jiya are amongst the most deceitful and treacherous in all the world, because their religion teaches them that betrayal is a virtue. Hence they hunt each other's heads.

You seem completely oblivious to all this, and toward everything that Christianity has delivered to Western Civilization. In fact., you not only take it all for granted, you want to pretend it comes from science and atheism.

The trouble is that most people don't pay attention.

I tried immorality for a while (my years with the outlaw MC gang) and could see it was corroding my spirit. So why did I quit and most others continue? The others were not (or did not want to) paying attention.

In fact attention is the highest price you can pay for anything. I love paying it. Not many do.

In the esoteric sciences it is called awakening. All religions teach it. Few adherents practice it. Pity.

"The one eyed man in the land of the blind" comes to mind.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:39 am

Diogenes wrote:
Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No, the credit for the promotion of Homosexuality into the mainstream is mostly the work of the film, news and entertainment industries.
Wow. Almost 50% representation for 2% of the population?They are doing better than Blacks. (13% of the population.)
Wow. The author can't even copy numbers from the page he linked to.
Not sure how you do your math, but in the segment I quoted it said that 41 characters on 84 programs were homosexual. 41/84 = 48.4 %. which is nearly 50%. Since we seem to feel like we want to act like a little punk, I'll further point out that:

And I'll point out that
- 23 is not 41, and 35 is not 53 (i.e. the figures quoted don't come from the linked source)
- according to the article you linked to, the share of the population that self-identifies as lesbian, gay, or bisexual in a survey is 3.5%.
- 23 characters out of 587 characters is 3.9%

The number of shows which include "at least one gay character" is pretty meaningless as that percentage depends on the size of the cast. Probably 100% of shows include at least one straight character. So what? If you pick 19 random people out of a population with 3.5% lesbians, gays, or bisexuals, chances are that 49% of the time you get at least one of them.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:48 am

MSimon wrote:.
.
.

Government’s Greatest Trick - Making you a slave to your fears.

.
.
.

What is the difference between the left and the right? What they fear.

Why do both sides hate libertarians? Because for the most part libertarians cannot be manipulated by fear.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:57 am

Seriously Simon, you're a whacko who needs medical attention.

Even when we ignore your psycho rants, you drag them thread to thread and push them into other peoples faces. How is it you can't see this is extremely unhealthy behavior?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:52 am

You and I have very different understandings of what it means to say "a society is surviving." From where I sit, the more Europe embraces secularism, the closer to destruction it seems to be heading. A Society's ability to survive must cross a subsequent generation. i.e. must last longer than at least a normal human lifetime.

Lets just look at Turky which was secularized by Kemal Pasha and brought towards the west. It became a NATO member and an ally to the US. Now secularism in Turky is in danger and so is its alliance with the US and its formerly good relationship with Israel.

All I see in Europe is a slowly occurring collapse.

Europe is a bit bigger than the EU... The EU might have troubles, but most countries would quickly recover after leaving it. Germany and Austria, e.g. still had economic growth even during the worst years of the recent recession. Look at the scandinavian countries which are doing great!

Yes, I can read just find, but you apparently have difficulty in understanding what you read. WHY should people be treated equally by the law? WHY? Explain this.

OK, now you are at least talking about the same thing. Earlier you were talking about people being born equal. Finally made up your mind, eh?
There are several reasons why:
1. Simply: Because it is the fair thing to do (my atheist understanding of morale and justice).
2. Just because someone is poor or of lower standing (from birth), does not mean that he is in any way (mentally or physically) inferior to someone who is rich or who was born into a noble family, family of high standing, etc. Treating them worse can waste possible talent that could improve society as a whole.
It is also a matter of motivation. Someone who will never be able to achieve equal rights will have a lot less motivation to try to give his best. This can be paralyzing to society. It is a proble that is very clear with the cast system in India.
This is why I believe strongly in giving everyone equal oportunities to make the best out of their lives.

A lot of people pin further advances in this regard on the Protestant reformation.

Well it did weaken the influence of the catholic church, allowing for previously impossible thoughts and advances, but that was more a side effect and not an intention. The protestants were in many ways just as conservative as the catholics in regards to science and the ways of the world. Hitler and his consorts loved to produce the view of the more noble protestant churches in order to sell (the mostly protestant) Germany as an ally to the (mostly catholic) Austrians. So all sorts of myths were produced. E.g. the notion that only the catholic church participated in witch hunts...

Which Church was that?

In Austria it was the catholic church. But if you look over to England, the queen is still crowned until this day by an anglican priest, if I am not mistaken and her right to rule is a gift from god...

Really? Do you find an error somewhere? 41 "gay" characters in 84 television programs equals 41/84 = 48.4% . That is nearly 50 % representation for 1.8% of the overall population.

One of us is certainly having a math skills problem, but i'm not seeing as how it is me.

Let me give you a hint: Since when do TV shows only have one character in them?

some of the Best Scientific minds in Germany

it is debatable whether they were the best scientific minds... And the concept was just as popular in other countries too, though they never went that far with the execution...

is spewing hate when they say that homosexuals are psychologically disturbed.

No, I was more referring towards people demonstrating at funerals of fallen soldiers claiming that this was a punishment from god for homosexuals. Or those religious nuts beating up people in the streets in Kansas...

The closest examples we have to an actual atheist society are the pieces of the former Soviet Union

Nope, because communism was just another religion as well. It was not based in science and scientists critizising it for its failures were deported and locked up in the gulac...

You are expecting empathy from a young child. They will reject that argument because temptation will eventually come which they cannot resist simply on that basis. They may argue, "I have nothing to steal, therefore nothing to worry about. " Which indeed, is a powerful motivation for socialist revolutionaries.

Religion usually looses to an empty stomack....

Yes, every young child understands the concept of "Honor" far better than the notion that an invisible guardian will punish them if they behave badly.

How about a very visible guardian, called a parent?!!!

As far as the next door neighbor's house. What use is there for parental examples when the boy next door can get all sorts of things just by stealing them?

Then you report that boy to the police and make your son watch him being taken away. It is that simple.

The diabolic beauty of the "Santa Claus effect" is that it obligates people to watch themselves, even when no one else is watching.

Until they realize that Santa aint coming for them either way...

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:08 am

You don't seem much to understand what science is, and you're showing ever more in each post you don't understand what secularism is, nor humanism.

A really? How do you get that idea? Sorry this is just BS talk coming from you. I think that you dont understand anything. There you go!

You seem to be writing each post as a defense of atheism and you've now steered the subject direct on top. It makes you look pretty simple minded and deceitful. You're making claims that seem to add up to "we atheists are the clever and correct ones, and all you others are unscientific and immoral."

Nope, never made that claim.
I was originally posting about secularism not atheism. This is not the same, though related in the sense that it is usually the atheists asking for secularism in government. I was using the example of an actual political issue to show the dangers of letting religion into politics. Once you have opened that door, you will have a hard time closing it again.
I am also contesting the idea that somehow religion is superior to atheism especially in regards to teaching people morals, but that was not the original intent of the post.

If that's what you believe, you ought to just say it instead of trying to deceive people who are quite frankly, much brighter than you are.

LOL, yeah I have noticed that

FYI, Locke, Hobbes, especially Kant in his Categorical Imperative all proposed that morality has its basis in reason, and that a rational person will be a moral person. The trouble with this is that our everyday observation is that this is not true. Ethics and morality obviously have their roots far deeper than reason, and being rational does not ever make one moral. Kant had no way to explain a Professor Moriarty.

These were philosophers and their theories based on a level of knowledge that has long be overtaken by modern science and probably was already obsolete by the time they wrote their ideas down.
Moriarty was a fictional character, not a real world person.

The facts are that being rational, does not in any way make one moral, while there is a direct cause effect relationship observed that religious people are in general more moral than the irreligious, and that the precise qualities of the religion matter as well.

My observations do not align with yours here.

Animists in Iran Jiya are amongst the most deceitful and treacherous in all the world, because their religion teaches them that betrayal is a virtue. Hence they hunt each other's heads.

A good example that religion is not a good thing and how dangerous it is to let something like that interfere with government.

You seem completely oblivious to all this, and toward everything that Christianity has delivered to Western Civilization. In fact., you not only take it all for granted, you want to pretend it comes from science and atheism.

Having myself experienced how so called religious people can behave and how amoralic they can be, especially towards people that they think dont share their oh so self righteous opinions, I can not agree with this at all!
The catholic church has done shit for western civilization. The biggest advances in western civilization were made AFTER it had lost most of its power.

Seriously Simon, you're a whacko who needs medical attention.

Nice...
I guess your christian morale did not teach you to be tolerant of other peoples opinions. I may not always share Msimons opinions and I sometimes feel like he is driving me nuts, but I dont think that this sort of name calling is warranted.
Try to bring arguments to defeat his instead of calling him names. You are looking weak when you do that!

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:20 am

GIThruster wrote:Seriously Simon, you're a whacko who needs medical attention.

Even when we ignore your psycho rants, you drag them thread to thread and push them into other peoples faces. How is it you can't see this is extremely unhealthy behavior?

Ah. So you are full of fear. Just as I suspected. Let me give you an explanation you possibly can understand from one of the greatest fear mongers of all time.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Herman Goering

The Right is full of social fears the Left mostly economic. And the parties amplify and exploit those fears.

You know them:

The Gay agenda
Drugs
Destroying the Planet
Greed
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum

And of course each side laughs at the fears of the others.

Become one with the Maker (or the equivalent in your religion) and the fear goes away. You are then a free man. Scary. Most prefer being slaves to their fears. The fears are comforting. They are old friends. And the company of those with similar fears is comforting.

He who has ears, let him hear. Matthew 11:15

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:28 am

Ethics and morality obviously have their roots far deeper than reason, and being rational does not ever make one moral. Kant had no way to explain a Professor Moriarty.

I want to go into that a bit more and that warrants its own post because you so obviously do not understand how this works.
1. Ethics have the same roots as our ability to reason. Most normal humans are born with a natural idea of good and bad. Most humans have a natural inhibition to hurt other people. Most people can not punch someone into the face without good reason, or cut someone. There are natural inhibitions that prevent us from doing that.
For the same reasons we do feel compassion.
These are evolutionarily developed mechanisms that guarantee the survival of the species.
There are people that are born without these mechanisms: Psychopaths and sociopaths.
These people usually wont be stopped from doing things that unethical by the idea of a god that will punish them. They are not stopped by the idea of an electric chair either...
The same missing inhibitions that make them psychopaths and sociopaths will prevent them from that.
It is also a myth that psychopaths are smarter than normal people and that they think more rationally. This is usually not the case. But that is very off topic now.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:30 am

And GIT my rants (why do you bother with the general forum - you know what I do here) are not for you. Your heart is hardened. My expositions are for the next generation.

The Bene Gesserit Witches had some wise advice.

LITANY AGAINST FEAR
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

I have come to the conclusion that the left works the way most people in fear work - i.e. working hard to make their fears come true. Of course the right is the same about the things it fears.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:32 am

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country

Herman Goering was an asshole, but as much as I hate to admit it, he did have a point there...
Now looking to todays issues, can we see parallels?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:55 am

Skipjack wrote:Most normal humans are born with a natural idea of good and bad.

See here's the problem Skip, you want to write long posts about issues you understand nothing about, have certainly never studied and apparently not thought about for more than 2 minutes in your entire life. OTOH, ethics has been a field of study in philosophy forever, and anyone who has actually studied it has had to spend hundreds or thousands of hours on the subject. People like me for instance.

So I have to ask, when you give the impression you are essentially empty on this subject, why should I read further? And too, can I ask, what is the point in posting on subjects you obviously know nothing about? How is that time well spent?

I mean seriously, between Simon recommending Aleister Crowley and telling us how evil he is and was, and you blathering like an idiot telling us that humans have a natural insight into good and bad, I just have to wonder where's the value added in this thread?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:09 am

I mean seriously, between Simon recommending Aleister Crowley and telling us how evil he is and was, and you blathering like an idiot telling us that humans have a natural insight into good and bad, I just have to wonder where's the value added in this thread?

Aren't the best warnings given by people with actual experience?

I have actually met the Devil and made friends with him. He is cunning. More cunning than you with all your ethics training can possibly imagine. He is so cunning that he can use your morality against you. CS Lewis (who you seem fond of quoting) once explained it.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

What people focus on is the Devil's exploitation of desire. But that is one of his least significant tools. If you want people to be evil to the bone exploit their fears.